RIDOT continues Rhode Works defense in House Finance


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The House Finance Committee took lengthy testimony from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation on Monday afternoon as the agency defended its Rhode Works program with renewed vigor. Representatives from RIDOT spoke for three hours, echoing many of sentiments they have previously made about the initiative, before answering many questions from representatives who remain unclear about what the state needs to give up to achieve what Rhode Works promises.

One of the biggest concerns for the committee was the success of the program, and whether or not RIDOT will actually be able to pay back the $500 million bond they are asking from the state, as well as make good use of the total $1.4 billion to fund the program. Representative Patricia Morgan (R- District 26) has been Rhode Works’ most vocal opponent, wondering why RIDOT cannot repair bridges with its existing funding.

Peter Alviti, RIDOT director, testifying in favor of Rhode Works
Peter Alviti, RIDOT director, testifying in favor of Rhode Works. (Photo by Elisha Aldrich)

Peter Alviti, the director of RIDOT, said the existing funding they have is not enough to sufficiently repair or reconstruct the 155 bridges that are structurally deficient.

The $500 million bond would pay the expenses for the 17 possible toll locations, leaving that money open for other locations.

“The rest of the money would then have adequate funds to not only reconstruct, but to operate and maintain the facilities,” he said.

Jonathan Wormer, director of the Office of Management and Budget, added that the borrowed money for the initiative would be used to keep bridges from becoming structurally deficient, because they would have the money up front to do so. The goal of the bond is to compress the time in which the bridges can be reconstructed.

“If you don’t fix them at the beginning, it costs them a lot more later,” Wormer said.

The revised version of the bill also contains $13.5 million worth in tax breaks and property rebates for truckers, as well as per day toll caps, which have raised questions about its legality. Some have expressed fear that the tax breaks would discourage interstate commerce, and violate the commerce clause in the United States Constitution. But, RIDOT has asserted that the breaks and tolls are legal.

After nearly three hours of questioning, the Rhode Island Trucking Association, which has opposed the bill from the beginning, brought in American Trucking Association Vice President Bob Pitcher to speak on their behalf.

“We object to the bill before you because of the means it would use to raise the money,” he said. “We believe the proposal would weaken Rhode Island’s economy unnecessarily.”

The biggest objection by Rhode Works opponents is that legislators are rushing into signing it in the last days of session, and possibly overlooking any flaws it might have.

“I’ve never seen anything so vague in a tax law. Tax laws normally say who pays what, and this one does not,” Pitcher continued, adding that Rhode Works is an unprecedented piece of legislation. “No other state has sought to toll multiple state highways or bridges. Because there is literally no experience in such tolling elsewhere, Rhode Island should be doubly cautious.”

In their calculations, RIDOT estimated a 25 percent diversion rate, or that 25 percent of truckers would avoid going through Rhode Island if they were to implement the tolls. Both Alviti and Wormer expressed that this number was very conservative, especially because the plan minimizes the chance for diversions. They also added that only about two percent of trucking companies’ budgets are spent on tolls. Pitcher believes that they have underestimated their diversion rate, in part because tolls don’t exist in large parts of the country.

Many other opponents came forward to testify against the bill, reiterating the worry that the bill has been moving through the State House too fast. In a press release, the Rhode Island Trucking Association called upon Governor Gina Raimondo to create a committee to investigate the bill, rather than push it through at the last minute.

“This process is moving entirely too fast and there have been no discussions or analysis on the fiscal impact of the proposed toll plan to the trucking industry or the business community,” said RITA President Christopher Maxwell.

Other groups have shown support for Rhode Works, including AAA Northeast, The Sierra Club, Grow Smart RI, and Building America’s Future, a national, bipartisan group of elected officials dedicated to infrastructure improvement.

No vote was taken on Monday, but a vote on a version of the bill expected in Senate Finance on Tuesday.

Raimondo toll plan deserves progressive support


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Tolls are the way to go, says Gov. Raimondo, and we need to have her back on that.

As Gov. Raimondo recently pointed out, Rhode Island has some of the highest per-mile costs for road infrastructure. In addition to that, as I’ve pointed out right here at RI Future, much of that road infrastructure is highway oriented, even in our cities. Providence is among a rogue collection of cities in the Rustbelt Midwest, Texas, and California for its lane-miles of highway infrastructure per capita.

highways
The Next St. Louis wrote a story on its problem with too much highway infrastructure, and unfortunately we ended up among the cities that have the same problem.

That means that our poorest areas where people often don’t have access to cars are choked by highways, causing air pollution and congestion that would otherwise be avoided with a multimodal system. The costs of this type of highway infrastructure are many orders of magnitude higher than other projects, and also at the same time stand in the way of development in urban areas. These factors act as both a push and pull force against our economic development and climate change goals.

One way Gov. Raimondo has sought to fix the imbalance of spending is to use tolls to provide some of our road funding. I know that there’s going to be lots of howling from all sides, so I want to preempt it and say to the governor, “Thank you! Well done!”

Tolls are not popular on the left or the right. The right, of course, unaware of how socialized and unbalanced policies around driving have become, cries that tolls are a “war on cars“. In Rhode Island, we’ve seen tea party vandalism against toll collection efforts on the Sakonnet Bridge. Sometimes elements of the left don’t understand the issue well either, seeing tolls as a way of stepping away from the responsibility of government to pay directly for infrastructure costs through general funds. I believe both are mistaken.

It’s correct to use government to invest in public infrastructure and lessen inequalities. Road spending is simply the least efficient way to do it. Although all classes of people drive to some extent, the poorest drive the least. Certainly if you want to help the odd person who is poor and happens to drive, there are more direct ways to target the aid. Though road projects cause a blooming of development, the revenue from the development does not add up to enough over the long-term to pay back the costs of the maintenance on infrastructure. Tolls are an equitable way to pay for road infrastructure. Paying for roads in this way also means that the general funds we have can be repurposed to more important and directly progressive goals, like an increased Earned Income Tax Credit in the state.

I call on the governor not only to toll highway-type infrastructure, but also to look carefully at how we can reduce unnecessary road expenditures. We need long distance roads in parts of our state, but our urban areas are far too choked by highways. The Route 10 section of the 6/10 Connector is now the oldest highway in the state, cuts neighborhoods in Providence and Cranston off from one another, makes the Washington Secondary bike path less useful, and prevents development along a prime corridor of urban land. Removing highways like Rt. 10 and building them in less expensive, more multimodal ways would lower our state’s costs, allowing tolls to be less extreme (I think Rt. 6 should go too, but its infrastructure is newer–some of it, in fact, is being replaced at great cost right now–so that may have to wait).

The progressive community needs to put its elbow grease into supporting tolling as one of the tools we use in transportation. It’s up to us to organize and educate constituencies for this, or else the governor’s proposal will fail.

~~~~

Providence: Top 10 freeway miles per capita


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

We have many things to be proud of, friends. Providence is one of several great cities in our state. Sadly, we’re in the top ten for something we should not be so proud of–Providence tops the ranks of U.S. cities for freeway miles per capita.

image

I was blown away when I attended a Rhode Map recently and found that we have no plan yet through that planning process to address urban highway removal, as has been done in cities great and small throughout the country. Providence should take its top ten status as a new impetus to remove expensive nightmares like Routes 6 & 10, to manage capacity on highways like I-95 and I-195 through bus rapid transit lanes, and to save on road expense throughout our urban areas through judicious use of road diets. These solutions are not only green, but reduce state infrastructure liabilities in a way that can give left and right what they each want: more money for services, and less need for high taxes to upkeep aging infrastructure.

As you can see, Kansas City & St. Louis are outliers. But Providence is well within the ranks of cities in Texas, as well as Rust Belt Cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is working very hard though to add protected bike lanes and build a more reliable transit system, though, so its situation (just a hair better than us on the chart) is probably a result in part of historical inertia. Maybe that’s partially the case with us too. And we should have hope that we can turn it around. Seoul, South Korea has removed fifteen freeways, and we can certainly handle our smaller lot of removing many fewer. This is another area where being a really small city gives us an opportunity–yes, we have problems, but they’re geographically small, so we can turn them around much faster.

In any case, it seems that we have a problem, and it’s quantifiable. I’ve often felt like a Providence map, from far away, looks fairly close to a Philly map, but the difference is the geographic size of the cities. You have the same pattern of a freeway here and a freeway there cutting this or that area off, but if you pay attention to scale you realize that in some parts of Providence it may be just a ten or fifteen minute walk from one freeway obstacle to another, whereas for Philadelphia you may have to walk an hour or more. So it’s gratifying to see the numbers and realize that the feeling is true.

In Philadelphia, certainly the feeling of crossing the Schuylkill Expressway is almost on par with crossing I-95 in Providence, but that has been improved recently with rebuilds of older, car-oriented bridges towards more multimodal ones like the South Street Bridge (which could still get better. . . Can we get some trees, or does that go against AASHTO requirements? Sigh. . . ). People in Philadelphia complain (rightly so) about the crossing to Penn’s Landing, which feels similar to the bridge into India Point Park, but by Providence standards that crossing is quite nice. You have plants on either side of the bridge (somewhat) guarding you from the reality that you’re over a huge interstate, and the streets on either side are unpleasant but at least not as bad as the I-95 service roads.

But I didn’t write this to get people upset or to leave people without hope. Providence is a remarkable city in between its highways. It can turn things around very quickly in the areas where it’s not a nice place. The first step, though, is seeing the measurable difficulty we face from our unnecessary urban freeways.